tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 16, 2014 11:00pm-1:01am EDT
a economist debate exactly what are of those unsettling labor market trends, and there are a lot of ideas put by the trends in the global economy and institutional changes. what could be done is greater training and education and clearly there is a great deal the public can do and also i see state and local governments and private individuals obviously in making their own decisions about training are responding to those differentials in ways that will be helpful over time. you.ank
because inflation is now very low, fed policy is focused on reducing slack in the labor market and raising inflation to about 2%. at some point a stronger economy may bring higher inflation rates . with the fed be willing to raise the fed fund's interest rate above the rate of inflation if the inflation rate begins rising above 2.5% even if there is still slack in the labor market question mark >> so let me emphasize that our commitment is two-sided.
we do not want to see inflation run persistently below our two percent target. we also do not want to see inflation run persistently above our two percent target. agofomc about two years wanted to make very clear that we have a very strong commitment to a two percent longer run inflation goal. and we for the first time issued a clear statement that 2% as the longer run inflation goal and we remain committed to it. this continues to be the case. although with inflation running , at this when, as i mentioned, i think the risk is greater that we should be worrying about inflation undershooting our goal and
getting inflation back up to two percent of course. the fao mc will be committed to protecting and collation if it threatens to rise persistently above 2% as well. clear it is completely that while monetary policy is very accommodative at this point and i focused on the need to keep it so or to adjust it to make sure the recovery remains on track, as the recovery proceeds and healing occurs, it is obvious we will need to tighten monetary policy to avoid overshooting our target and we are very focused on that. this is a judgment call that the federal reserve needs to make. in every expansion, overshooting
that goal, we have learned in past episodes and past recoveries can be very costly to reverse. that's something we do not want to happen and we will remain focused on removing accommodation when the right feelhas come and i confident that we have the tools to do that and also the commitment and the will. our objective of two percent longer run inflation very clear we did that in order to be transparent and give the public a way to hold us accountable for achieving that goal. [applause] >> the federal reserve has been
doing it's difficult work during the global financial crisis and the aftermath. in a global context. as we look at the current and , the twoituation largest economies in the world, that of the united states and eurozone seem to have some significant differences. there are differences in the pace of economic growth both cyclical and perhaps the long-term growth prospects in which the u.s. seems to be in better condition. there also seems to be big differences in the condition of bank balance sheets. in europe there has been the spillover of the sovereign debt and other factors. how do these differences in growth and the current health of the financial system in the two regions complicate fed policy with regard to two different things, number one, the decision
on policies related to economic stimulus it also policies related to supervision and regulation? i completely agree that some of the economic challenges facing europe and the united states are quite different. seeing we are differences in economic , itations around the globe is likely that the process of removing accommodation will take place at different paces in different parts of the world. and this will be a challenging situation over the last year or so. we have been very focused on potential spillovers of policies and challenges that this differences in the likely pace
of them is rational motivation of policies pose for developing economies for emerging markets -- market economies in a world where our global capital flows respond to small shifts in policy and expectations about policy. we have seen that the shifting expectations have imposed some difficulties for emerging markets, particularly in managing policies. europe,ase of obviously, the european situation is one with high unemployment. there has been a return to growth but it is proceeding at a very modest pace . there are challenges that we do not face in the united states across the euro area of readjusting competitiveness across countries. and shifting current account
balances among the countries in the euro area. i think europe is being held by adjustments in their banking sector and problems in the banking sector that i think we have a much stronger banking sector in they united states. u.s. specifically about banks, bank balance sheets and supervision. and regulation. , bothe been very focused the federal reserve and other regulators in the u.s. and globally working with our colleagues to strengthen the financial system and the aftermath of the crisis. to make tanking organizations stronger and two more broadly weuce systemic risks so that are at less risk of a financial crisis. and i do believe that we are
making very meaningful progress in that task. there is much more and higher-quality capital and more liquidity in the u.s. banking system. standardsised capital very meaningfully particularly firms andst systemic as my colleagues and i have mentioned there may be some further changes that we will put into effect to raise capital standards. the large firms and banking are wellions generally on the track to meeting those higher capital standards and my perception of the situation in the banking industry at this point is banks look to land, they want to provide credit and they are supporting the recovery. in europe i think the situation
is different but they have made meaningful progress in trying to form a banking union that will be a pillar of strength in european and euro area economy. usy are working closely with to enhance capital standards and to move forward with us to a level playing field in terms of capital standards and regulations. i think they're economy however at this point is somewhat more constrained by the need of banking organizations to build capital. they have made quite a bit of progress i think in toward forming a banking union in the you see be -- and the ecb is in the process of conducting an asset quality review and stress
tests, those words steps that were important. inputting our banking organizations on the road to health and recovery. i think they will be equally important in europe as well. for the answer that you gave to my previous question about inflation. i found the answer very reassuring. subjecto stick with the of inflation and ask how you will decide how the federal reserve -- reserve will decide that the risk of inflation, the risk of overshooting the goal is high enough to warrant a significantly positive real fed fundraiser. that is how will you make sure that you are ahead of the curve, not behind the curve.
of princeton suggested that the short-term unemployment rate, the unemployment rate for those out of work for less than six months , my provided good earlier indicator and i wonder if you agreed with that and if not what you would look at to try to anticipate inflation going above the 2% goal. certainly be looking at a wide friday of indicators pertaining to the labor market and of course strictly to the performance of inflation pressures and inflation expectations. and one measure as i noted in my isech of labor market slack wage pressures that can translate into price pressures
and be an early warning indicator of impending uptake and inflation. also the relationship between which inflation -- wage inflation and price inflation has been less reliable in recent years. indicated in my remarks that one of the questions about the economy we will be focused on pertains to the labor market and trying to assess just how much slack there impact of thehe labor market is on inflationary pressure. as you mentioned alan krueger's work but there is a line of it isch that suggests mainly short-term unemployment rather than long-term unemployment that has an impact on inflation. if that lineable of thinking is right that even
, if thatployment high line of thinking is correct, we could see that even with the unemployment rate high by historical standards to my inflationary pressures would actually be rising. the long-term unemployed according to that reasoning are placing less downward pressure on inflation. i think it is premature to jump to that conclusion that that argument is correct. some arguments and other remarks i have given about why i think the long-term unemployed are likely to move back more actively into the pressurece. and exert on wages and prices as the labor market strengthens. we will have to watch unfolding
evidence and evaluate it with an open mind and very carefully in the months ahead to make the assessment that will be necessary. i mentioned there can be surprises and one of the surprises we could see, i would not rule out. i do not think it is most likely. that inflation could rise to levels where we would need to redress it before we might expect at this point. the purpose of my remarks is to emphasize that there can be twists and turns. we need to be alert to what is happening and to respond to what we see happening and not a fixed
held att we perhaps some earlier time about what will come to pass. [applause] >> thank you for these insightful remarks and answers to the questions. thank you abby and thank you martin for the questions. the next meeting will be here at the marriott. on monday, april 28 and the speaker will be alan greenspan. like you for coming and please enjoy your lunch. thank you very much. >> coming up emma former british defense secretary liam fox discovers nsa surveillance programs and the effect of the edward snowden lakes. then, former secretary of state hillary clinton is among the speakers at the fifth annual women in the world summit. by federal reserve
chair janet yellen at the economic club of new york. on the next "washington journal. and the new book on the state of the global economy. sun correspondent talks about a nevada rancher who is facing a conflict with the bureau of land management overgrazing fees. and your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> defense secretary chuck hagel and the polish defense minister hold a news conference to discuss russian intervention,
u.s. poland relations, and other topics. life coverage at 1045 eastern here on c-span. >> our colleagues have spent this evening reiterate -- reiterating information and i want to make sure we cleared up. the independent guardian ad litem has said in his report that in spite of the fact that mike colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that terri schiavo felt pain and laughed and cried that that is factually inaccurate. that her cerebral cortex has been the good fight and that is the area of the brain that responds to emotion and reason. that is impossible what they have detailed here tonight. additionally they talk about six numeral just and eight positions who have said that she is not in a persistent vegetative state. also factually inaccurate. those physicians have only viewed terri schiavo through
videotape. physiciansce -- the who have examined her, the board-certified neurologist who researchedcally testimony, their testimony was deemed to be clear that she was in a persistent vegetative state. in addition, i want to just close with the commentary from the guardian ad litem. he would put his -- he spent 20 of 30 days with her. he put his face close to hers and tried to make eye contact. trying to will her into you being the kind of sign. i would beg her, please help me. you want to believe there is some connection. is want to believe that she really here. but she never made eye contact.
when wilson visited her when her parents were there should never made eye contact with them either. and for all wilson's pleadings and coaxing's he never got what he most wanted, a sign. he said he felt like there was something distinctive about whoever she is but i was not clear that it was there inside the vessel. during this 30 days, wilson was plagued by nightmares. me 30he derailment yield seconds? rex 15 seconds. >> he concluded that the evidence was credible. he still felt that for all the experts they never would truly know where she was. he was dismayed to learn that an attorney for the schindler's claim that terri schiavo try to speak area -- try to speak. this reduces her to a fiction. >> find more highlights from 35 years of house for coverage on our facebook page. created by america's cable
companies 35 years ago and brought to you today by a public service by your local cable or satellite heard that -- provider. isduring this month c-span pleased to present our winning entries in this year's student cam video documentary competition. student can is a competition that encourages students to think critically about issues. the question we asked students to base their documentary on was -- what is the most important issue that u.s. congress should consider in 2014? second prize winner matthew shimura is a junior at punahou school in hawaii. he would like congress to consider a clean and renewable energy plan as its most important issue. >> every day the sun rises here in hawaii. every day, the waves crash upon our shores. every day, the wind blows in the mountains. every day, the lawful flows beneath the earth. even though my state has within its borders abundant renewable
energy, we still rely on fossil fuels for over 80% of our needs. in 2008, hawaii recognized that our dependence on fossil fuels was threatening our most precious resources -- the land, the air, the water. our state government set up a clear plan to move away from traditional energy sources and to move towards a greener future. ladies and gentlemen of congress, this is something we need for our whole country. a national clean energy plan is the most important issue to consider in 2014. we need your action to break the clean energy gridlock. there is a growing consensus that the use of fossil fuels contributes to climate change. especially by forming carbon dioxide. >> the evidence is overwhelming, the science is clear. the threat is real and urgent. the science behind climate change is simple.
carbon dioxide makes the earth warmer and we are emitting more and more of it into the atmosphere. this increase in greenhouse gases, above all, from the combustion of fossil fuels, is affecting the climate. >> more than 97% of climate scientists are convinced that human caused climate change is occurring. if our changing climate goes unchecked it will have a devastating impact on the u.s. and our planet. >> this year, the observatory on hawaii's big island measured 400 parts per million of carbon backside in the atmosphere. this level has not existed for thousands of years. >> the plan i put forth to protect our country from the effects of climate change is the path we need to take. if we remember what is at stake -- the world we leave to our children -- this is a challenge we will meet. >> this is not just the job of the executive branch.
it is the responsibility of congress as well. the commerce clause of the constitution says congress should regulate interstate commerce and energy, whether traditional or renewable, is a form of interstate commerce. so, i met with the president of hawaiian electric industries to learn more about our country's energy policies. >> the energy system in america has become more and more federal in nature and more national in nature. there is not regulatory bodies that regulate the bulk power system. power can be generated in one state but then exported across that state's borders and interstate commerce. >> today, renewable energy policies very from one state to the next. some states regulate the amount of greenhouse gases they will permit, other states require a certain percentage of renewable energy be produced.
even more states have energy efficiency requirements for cars or buildings. right now, there is a patchwork of renewable energy policy across our country. >> the use of renewables across the u.s. really vary significantly. because the energy picture across the u.s. varies significantly. the parts of the united states that actually have very good wind resources, primarily through the middle of the country. then when you get to the southwest you have excellent solar resources. of course, in the pacific northwest, they have hydropower. >> another reason for a federal plan is that the states might not be able to regulate renewable energy by themselves. renewable supplies have to be coordinated to meet nationwide demand. they have two feet into the national grid along with
traditional energy. energy resources across the country have to be integrated with each other. a national policy for renewable energy makes sense. so far, the states taking the initiative. state action might be restricted by the commerce clause of the constitution. >> the commerce clause was to preclude individual states from actually impacting interstate commerce. the idea was even though we are comprised of 50 states, we are one nation and we should have open borders between our states. commerce should flow freely across state batteries. and so there have been challenges to some of the state laws that have sought to restrict production facilities that were within that particular state. >> the commerce clause may prevent states from acting on their own.
i understand why congress has not been able to agree on anything yet. renewable energy is more expensive than traditional energy, especially with all the natural gas we have available in our country. there is also concern about losing traditional energy jobs. and there is controversy about the role of fossil fuels in our energy future. these problems are not insurmountable. we have faced many of them on a smaller scale in hawaii. >> in 2008, hawaii decided it really needed to reduce dependence on oil forever. and our goal is to actually move 15% to renewable sources by 2015. it goes up to 40% in 2030. in addition, to reduce consumption by 30% through energy efficiency. and that is a total of 70% clean
energy by 2030. >> i am not saying congress should model its clean energy policy on the hawaii plan. i am not recommending any specific lee energy policy for you to adopt. i am just asking you make this priority for 2014. ladies and gentlemen of congress, this is my message to you. it is time for a national clean energy plan. it is time to break the gridlock. >> to watch all the winning videos and learn more, go to c-span.org and click on student cam. post comments on facebook or tweet us.
fox wrote an liam op-ed calling the edward snowden lakes treason. next he speaks about government surveillance and privacy issues at an event hosted by the american enterprise institute. this is one hour. >> good morning and welcome to the american enterprise institute. dr.re pleased to welcome liam fox. he is member of the british parliament and has served there for 18 years. he was the shadow foreign secretary and shadow defense secretary and became the actual
defense secretary and served with distinction in that role. robust champion of defense and a champion of the men and women in the american and british intelligence services who does much to protect us from terror and foreign dangers. that is what we're here to talk about. one of the most damaging leaks in the history of american and british intelligence. he declared edward snowden thinks of himself as a cyber age really warrior but in reality he is a self publicizing narcissist. limit not attempt to damage. let us call treason by his name -- it's name. we are pleased to have him here this morning. >> thank you. gchq calledead of
the snowden lakes the most britishphic loss to intelligence ever. what is your assessment of the to bothhat has done and our national security and yours? >> i think it is huge and you can see it at a number of different levels. first of all we know that 58,000 andes of very confidential secret information was leaked. that is damaging to our security weerests in themselves and can discuss that. it was also calculated to damage america's standing with its allies and damage the american diplomatic process which is in line with what i described as the anti-american and anti-western views of both glenn greenwald and edward snowden himself. he did not want to live in a world he said where everything was under surveillance and isrything was recorded but
happy to live in an sfb -- naf safeafe house -- in a fsb house. >> this morning james crawford said the terrorists and other adversaries are going to school on u.s. intelligence sources and that the insights they are gaining are making our job much heart -- much harder. you talked about how there are specific instances where there is chatter when the terrorists are changing their operating mode talking about avoiding certain things based on the snowden documents. >> yes, we have seen from our own intelligence how groups in south asia and terrorist groups that we don't pose a threat to us have been delighted to be told by edward snowden how the cyber security services went about intercepting communications. armed with that information they made sure to exploit the ways of talking to one another. i think there are three elements
to the disclosures. first of all, there was the extent of nsa surveillance. i think that if that was done within the law and the limitations imposed, that is a legitimate debate in a democratic society. and i think it would be hard to argue that it is stuck within those parameters, but that was not a useful public function. the second element, to go into what you just described, the means and mechanics by which the intelligence services go about their business is extraordinarily irresponsible and damaging. third, going in for the details on the actual names of agents and operatives? that is criminally irresponsible and, in my view, crime. i think it shows a total disregard for the people who were actually involved on the sharp end. the decent, patriotic people who put their lives on the line for our country, to disclose their names in public.
we know that tt has done a lot of damage in terms of the threats to them and our ability to deploy freely overseas. there are a whole range of areas. clearly, on that second, if you tell the enemies of your country how you go about listening to their communications, the first thing they will do is find a different way. it is not just terrorist groups. this is a point that has been missed in the american debate. this is also about the ability of economic enemies to steal our intellectual properties and, in the long term, damage our national prosperity. it is also about dealing with pedophile rings, being able to break them up. the next time you get a bomb going off in the subway or a marathon, when someone's child is abducted by a pedophile ring, you might want to thank those who made it easier for those people to do those things.
>> one of the secrets you pointed out was that not all of this has to deal with surveillance and civil liberties implications, and a particularly damaging leak was the revelation that they have broken the communications systems of the russian presidency during the g 20 summit in london. it was reported by "the washington post" that right before the russian invasion of ukraine we did not have intelligence to indicate something was about to happen. do you see a connection between those things? has edward snowden damaged our ability to figure out what rush is doing in the ukraine? >> let's put it in the general terms. if you make it very clear that you have been able to get signal intelligence about particular ways in which communications take place, then it is very obvious that if that is
compromised, you have to close down those channels and that will limit how much information you get in the future. so, we should not be surprised if we are less able to get an idea of what is going on in the world in terms of the information that we can get to understand or preempt activities elsewhere if we have not closed down as a result of the compromises by snowden. why would anyone be surprised at that? >> mike rogers, the house intelligence committee chairman said that he believes that no one in the intelligence community doubts that edward snowden is now under the influence of russian intelligence. the only question is when he became effectively an agent of russian intelligence. do you agree with him? what was your assessment? >> i think that that is very hard to say. i would not want to speculate on that, i am not sure it is helpful.
but what is clear is to look at his motivations, to say that, as i mentioned earlier, you don't want to live in a world of surveillance where what you say and what you do is scrutinized. the first place you go is china? and when you regard the chinese embrace as insufficient to your taste, you had to moscow to be close to the fsb. this is a russia that not only invaded georgia, but let's look at it from a journalistic perspective -- a place where journalists are criticized in the press disappear. to have accidents and elevators. where the enemies of vladimir putin have terrible chances of having a premature accidents. in the united kingdom and seen u.k. citizens murdered by the fsb. this is where he chose to go. rather than living in the united states, he chooses to make his nest with the fsb.
that is again a speculative matter, but what you can at least say is that his choices are very clear. i remind you, those are deeply perverse choices. >> not all the snowden documents have been publicly released yet. we are getting this in trips and drabs. we will talk more about that in a minute. the chinese, do you think the chinese and russians basically no everything that he knew? is the damage done? is the counterintelligence much deeper than we realized? >> edward snowden was carrying these documents with him. if he was wheeling them around to the guardian and the united kingdom, and they were being
transferred -- let's just talk about some of the security. when glenn greenwald's partner, maranda, was arrested, not only was he carrying a memory stick with 56,000 u.k. secret files on it, in his pocket he carried a piece of paper with one of the codes for the encrypted files area that was the level of security by which they were doing this. not only did i think they had particularly ulterior motives, but it was more like james bond in the way that they were carrying it out, which would be comical if it were not so tragic and dangerous. i think we therefore have to assume that the places he chose to visit, china and russia, must have access to those particular documents, given that their own security was superior. one of the instance -- incidences from "the new york times," where greenwald travel to hong kong, they were walking up and down discussing the
contents of these documents so freely that they would disturb in passengers around them. these are some of the national secrets that we expect governments and its employees to protect for us. i think we have to assume that a great deal, if not all of this information was completely compromised. that has a lot of implications for the ways in which we carry out our security services, which are ultimately protection of everyone in this room and in our respective countries. >> glenn greenwald was very upset about his partner being assaulted, in his view, by british security services. he said it was an attack on free speech and the freedom of the press. but he was carrying stolen documents. is there any difference between that and, say, a drug smuggler or diamond smuggler stopped at
heathrow? >> it was the smugness, the arrogance of it. this toxic combination of arrogance and incompetence has been one of the hallmarks of all of this. of course, greenwald said -- you arrested my partner, therefore i am going to be much more aggressive in my reporting. i know lots of things about the english spy system that i am going to reveal. if you have the audacity to stop my partner at heathrow, i am going to purposely damage your national security as a consequence. what sort of world do we live in where that gets a feel it surprise for public service? >> let's talk about that. my newspaper was just awarded the pulitzer prize for that public service. "the guardian" has shared in that award. you have requested that "the guardian" be investigated.
can you talk a little bit about whether the award was deserved? >> well, whether it is an award for good journalism, as a politician you might not want to make a judgment on that. but an award for public service? for possibly the greatest the trail of our national secrets of all time? that strikes me as quite bizarre. i do think that there is a real danger of a very cozy media world padding itself on the back without really understanding the consequences for the dangers that we face in a very dangerous world. i think there is a dangerous disconnect there. as for the newspaper itself, my view was that if individuals gave the names of opportunists outside the u.k. jurisdiction, that would be a breach of the 2000 terrorism act in the united
kingdom. if that applied to me as an individual, why would it not apply to a newspaper? this is not about the privileged position of journalism, this is about equal application of the law. they are meant to apply to us all equally, not more favorably to some than others. i think that that applies also to newspapers. having spoken to the director of public prosecutions, we need a look at whether the guardian has in fact broken our main terrorist pieces of legislation as a consequence of mewling 58,000 highly secret pieces of british intelligence around, or indeed, more specifically, exporting outside the jurisdiction the names of operatives. that is an ongoing investigation
by the metropolitan police. >> you have not received an answer yet? like i do not expect them to do so thickly. it is a serious charge to be made and it is a serious investigation that needs to be carried out. i think it is ongoing and will take its due course, but it is very important that we do so. there are questions here about the relationship between government, civil service, and media. i don't think you can take the view that we don't want the media to be able to portray themselves as the victims of the state. the state's responsibility is, primarily, the security of its citizens. >> when i spoke to friends at the nsa, they told me that their british counterparts are absolutely flummoxed by the response to the leaks here and to the nsa surveillance activity. that the british surveillance activities have deceived very broad support in the united states. why is that? why does there seem to be some -- so much outrage in some quarters where it seems to be expected and supported where you come from?
>> it is quite perplexing. from a conservative u.k. perspective, this debate has been very different on the two sides of the atlantic. in the u.k., the view of the public has sort of been -- well, of course our spies spy. if they are not spying, why are we paying them? that, i think, partly comes from our historical experience and relatively more comfortable concept of what our security services do. and also our experience particularly in relation to northern ireland, where we saw the real threat on the u.k. man lands and relied a great deal on the security services to protect us. also, i think it is about comfort with oversight. there is a fairly good understanding that we have the
prime minister appointment of the cabinet, an unelected cabinet where the foreign secretary has direct oversight and control over gchq and where the home secretary has control over the security service and we have the two external commissioner judges wanted by the prime minister, you have the security committee in the house of commons. there is a confidence and understanding of that oversight. in the united states, the debate has been hugely focused on what the nsa does or is capable of doing in terms of civilian interception. rather than the other two elements, which i described as how the security services go about their business and the means by which they do so, the compromise of that, and its consequences.
also, the impact it has on the personnel involved. i just find it strange debate. what have we learned so far? following the snowden revelations? has anyone shown that any of this surveillance activity has been illegal under the oversight that is set out in the united states? under a system that is overseen by congress where permissions are given by presidents of whatever political color. the last two administrations were very different. it seems to me that the argument has always been hijacked by -- let's call it a lever terry and element in united states politics where i think insufficient balance has been given to the debate, watching it from a u.k. perspective, it seems to be rather odd. some of those i would normally have expected to be out there, outraged at the damage to the
security of the american people, they seem to have been focused on whether the nsa have the ability to intercept the e-mails of people. i find the balance of the debate difficult to understand. >> fascinating. as you point out in your piece, glenn greenwald, the guardian, some of these people are very openly anti-american, anti-western, yet they seem to have tapped into an opposition on the right in the united states over these things. do you think american conservatives have been duped by this a little bit? i this left wing cabal? >> i think it is a matter of priorities. it is a legitimate debate. let's face it, in any democracy, the level of surveillance that security services are able to have. and the level of oversight that
they have, that is a legitimate debate. i just find it odd that the debate here has been so skewed in one direction without looking at what dangers our children are being placed under, with pedophile rings knowing how we operate against them. by our entire industrial sector being potentially more open to industrial espionage. the security of our citizens now being more exposed because transnational terrorist organizations, against whom we have put so much effort to combat in recent years, now i know a lot more about how we owe disrupting their activities. you tell me. why has there been such an imbalance in the debate? >> it is interesting, a lot of the -- the majority of the revolution -- revelations have had nothing to do with civil liberties. one former cia director i spoke to -- spoke with, we worked on the russian leak that we
discussed, that we had tapped into the server at a chinese university, one of the backbones of the chinese internet, which severely compromised our ability to collect on china. even "the new york times" revealed that they had used certain technology to tap into al qaeda computers not hooked into the internet. they sought -- they thought that if they step off the grid they would be ok, but we found a way. the times reported that there is no evidence that the technology had been used against al qaeda in the united states. does any of this have to do with civil liberties? any legitimate reason this should be in the public domain under any circumstances? >> i will probably get thrown out for this one, but just as i think there is a smug, self-congratulatory element inside the media, which lives in
a limited double, i think the same applies to beltway politicians who are obsessed with the internal mechanics of politics and with, let's face it, abstract political issues that don't reflect the vast majority of citizens. nor does it interest them. what does matter is the security of those systems, their safety, the safety of the children, the ability to live without interference from foreign agencies and powers that will do them harm. what this is perhaps indicating is a dangerous dislocation between the political and media classes. the rest of the people in the country would much rather listen to a debate about what matters to them and their safety and their families safety band some abstract political issues, which i think they feel are hugely ephemeral. >> can you talk a little bit about why signal intelligence is so important in the war on terror? our laws are actually much
stricter when it comes to revealing these forms of intelligence as opposed to others. in world war ii if you expose a double agent in the nazi high command, that person might be killed, but it would not put the war effort at risk, whereas if we have lost the ultra program, the war would have changed. the signal has always been seen as a higher level, treated at a higher level. we have had our intelligence baird to the world, with enormous damage. why is that exposure so much more damaging than the interrogation program or other things that have been exposed in recent years? >> it is important because of the era in which we live and the environment in which our security services operate. the internet is a wonderful thing. it opens up information to us in a way we have never had before. it opens up information in closed societies.
a chance to export values to people who otherwise would never have been able to give it. a tremendous opportunity in the era in which we lived. it has a dark side. the internet allows the enemies of our state to communicate with one another on a plethora of ways that they can do that. it allows them to organize against us, as we have seen in terrorist attacks before. it opens them up to uncensored violence they can teach them new ways of doing us harm. our security services need to be there. they need to be able to operate in that environment because our populations do here again it would be really nice if we all operated in one information
environment and our enemies operated in another, but that is not the case. all the ways in which they transmit information and the ways we are able to intercept it are more vital than ever before. that has been completely blown apart. there are different estimates as to how much of the signal intelligence has been compromised, but we have to operate on the precautionary principle. we think that any elements have been compromised? you have to close them down. that means that a great deal of the time, effort, and risk that individuals put into getting this information is now lost to us. why? because you have had one altra narcissistic individual who was able to and assisted by a number of others who had deeply anti-western interests to completely compromise us. the debate has not been about whether the industrial enemies of the country now have access
to our intellectual property. whether our children were at risk from international child sex slavery. or whether we are more at risk from al qaeda or other terrorist groups. it has all been his beltway discussion about what the nsa can do in terms of domestic interception of e-mails. i find this very difficult to understand. we need to grasp that this is not a debate about the freedom of the press. this is a debate about our national security, the most fundamental breach of our national security, probably of all time. it seems that the penny has not dropped for many of those who should be the ones who, on behalf of the people of the country, are being outraged. >> the other day and the press there were satellite photos in
the front page of the american papers of russian troop movements outside ukraine. we don't have satellite images of terrorists are pairing to attack us. basically, in order to find out when the terrorists planned to attack, we need them to tell us. there are only three ways to do that. interrogation, infiltration, and interception. interrogation be don't do anymore. that stopped. infiltration is very hard. we are left with, essentially, interception. now that has been incredibly damaged. what is the risk that we face with the damage of another attack happening? >> much greater. it is impossible to quantify, but we know it is much greater. you and i, everyone in this room, anyone who might follow our proceedings, we are much more at risk, as are their families, because of the snowden revelations.
so, when they are all congratulating greenwald, the guardian, "the new york times," and whoever else is lauded the pulitzer committee, they might want to think about the real story here. we are all more susceptible to all of the range of threats that i have already mentioned. i just find it breathtakingly irresponsible. >> cnn had a video last night of an open-air ok the meeting in yemen where hundreds of these terrorists gathered, the number two leader of al qaeda spoke of them, rallied them, completely unafraid of drone strikes. in which he said he rallied them to the cause of attacking america again. the al qaeda threat, we keep hearing from the president that
al qaeda is on the run, has been decimated, is nearing defeat. that does not seem like a terrorist movement on the edge of defeat, speaking openly like that area tell me what the al qaeda threat is today. >> they will be looking to see whether we are able to disrupt them. or at least we will want them to worry that we are able to disrupt them. that we are able to hear them. that we are able to intercept them. ultimately they will be looking to see our political reaction to the snowden revelations. so, has the reaction, in our three democracies, been to say that this is outrageous? that this is treason? that this must be dealt with either full weight of the law? or it has not been a beltway discussion where the media is congratulating itself for being able to tell the public just what a big security risk they have been exposed to. i think they will come to the
conclusion that we are self absorbed in a way that puts abstract political ideas ahead of the security of our country. if we don't put the security of our country is our first priority, what message are we sending to the people who want to do us harm? i think that we need to remember that this is not, as i say, some smug, self-congratulatory political bubble that we live in. what we say is listened to by people outside, enemies as well as friends. i think we need to be fully cognizant of the encouragement that they will now have been given. not only have we told them how we go about listening to them in particular, and how we have gone about disrupting them in the past, we have given them the names of our agents and operatives, putting those people much more at risk, they and
their families much more at risk of direct activity and interception. and we have told them that our political response is to gaze at our naples, rather than be concerned about public security. i think that all of those messages are exactly the wrong messages to send. we should be ashamed of ourselves. >> the editor of the guardian said he testified before the british foreign affairs committee. no names of officials have been leaked by the guardian. >> bazaar from a man who says they have only read 10% of the documents they were given. if you have only read 10% and you are willing to testify to the committee a thousand comments that no agents names have been given, that seems to me to be an awful contradiction, probably in line with i think the full intellectual case that has been made by the guardian --
"the guardian" on this. as well as the responsibility of dealing with the issue. it is a demonstration of their incompetence. >> snowden, greenwald, they all said that this stuff was encrypted unprotected files, safely hidden away. should we be worried that they are not correct? [laughter] >> is not a question of whether they are encrypted or not. these are classified national documents. you cannot export them outside your jurisdiction without it in treason. even if you take their ridiculous argument at face value, moran to mule was carrying the password -- maranda the mule was carrying the password in his pocket.
it is incompetence, arrogance, all added to a perverse anti-western ideology. this is a dangerous mixture. why are we not more outraged about this? i am outraged, you aren't outraged, we should all be outraged. >> if only 10% has been published, 90% of it is out there and waiting to be shared with journalists, shared with the world, is there any way to put this genie in the bottle? are these secrets coming out whether we like it or not? is there a way to put a stop to these revelations? >> once it is outside our jurisdiction, very probably it is with the chinese and the russians, there is a reason to assume it would be. now we have to accept that there has been phenomenal reduction in our ability to protect ourselves.
there has been huge compromise of our security capabilities. we will have to invest in rebuilding them. we will have to look at what, exactly, the portion of our spending we contribute to security. these tremendous dragons that people rail against constitute 0.3% of total government spending and the equivalent of what he spend on the health services of bridge in every six days. or .7% of american total government spending. i think that puts it in perspective, the we will have to look at it again, how much we required to rebuild. we will have to look again at how we ensure it does not happen in the future. for our protection we depend on the competency of government and the integrity of the individuals involved in the system not to
divulge our secrets. i think that we again need to be looking at the government system of contract users and individuals to make sure we are minimizing the risks. you can never eliminate them, but you can minimize the risk of a security breach like this happening again in the future. >> a lot of these leaks have had the effect of tying the hands of our intelligence service. computers that were not log onto the internet, now they know, now they have other means. that ties their hands. the response from the administration and from congress, rather than doing is you say, to rebuild around this, it is to tie the hands of the intelligence services even more, showing americans but we are not listening to their phone calls and e-mails. we will not collect this data anymore. we won't even require the phone companies to keep it. seems like the response should be to a leak like this that -- let's dramatically put resources into finding ways to affect our intelligence capabilities as
opposed to the response of spending a lot of time tying the hands of the intelligence community. >> our biggest problem is we have a massive hole in the fence. the first thing is to rebuild the hole and then maybe get a new fence. it costs money, time, and effort. if we were investing more of lives and time on the internet, then the argument might have some legitimacy, but that is where our enemies are. our enemies are in the security services, where they need to be. rather than pandering to some of the arguments that have been made in the defense of snowden
and his acolytes, i think it is incumbent upon our leaders to tell people the sorts of threats that we still face, to be realistic about the fact that since 9/11, the threats have grown, they have not diminished. transnational terrorism is more powerful than it was before. and it is why we needed to have the activities of the security services that we do. to point out the oversight we already have in place. that it is governed by law. that no one has been able to show that intelligence has behaved illegally or disproportionately within the ledge -- the oversight they were already subjected to. so, let's try to get this the right way up. >> everyone in this room are decent, law-abiding citizens. we hope. who is tracking our movements on the internet more closely?
the nsa and gchq or google? >> that is difficult to say. i noticed how in the debate people were going crazy about what the nsa were doing, but it did not seem to bother them when they went on to expedia and it somehow magically told you the hotels in the last city you were looking at on a different website, or that what you go shopping they are able to say -- we thought you would like this. people don't seem to regard that as an unwarranted intrusion, but when it comes to security services, giving protection to them and their families, they seem to be outraged by this. am i the only person who finds an odd disconnect in this process? it is all about our sense of proportion and priorities.
we depend on security services for our very liberty. what i find deeply perverse about the political debate is it is almost as though there is a charge against our security services that they are the ones who are threat to liberty, democracy, and freedom, when they are the ones who were there to protect it by ensuring that the enemies of those things are kept in a box. we need to get this debate in proportion, the right way around. it is seriously damaging not only our internal political priorities, distorting the internal political debate, but it is sending entirely the wrong signals about who we are, what our values are, and what our intent is to those who would do us harm. >> if there is another 9/11, another london subway bombing, how will this all look in retrospect?
>> i think that that is a really serious question. you could take a very politically tempting route to say -- well, thank you to the newspapers who have helped mr. snowden. thank you to those who have given awards to those who have helped betray our national secrets. but i think that we need to just stop there. and say, before we get into pointing the finger and the blame culture -- how do we deal with the much more important questions, which are not lyrical ones, but our security ones. how do we repair the damage to the system that has already been done? how do we prevent such damage from occurring in the future? how do we reorient take our
political debate so that it is about the things that matter to the people that we represent? and whose security we are supposed to protect? rather than the cozy internal world of beltway politics and journalism? time for us to get real. >> let's take some questions from the audience. we have one right here. we will bring a microphone to you. >> thank you so much for appearing here today and for the valid points you made. you talked about a hole in the fence. i'm trying to remember, edward snowden before he fled was not a high level employee. his highest level of education was a high school degree. despite that, he had access to this top classified information. what does that tell you about the security of our intelligence services? >> as i said earlier, that is a very legitimate question about
the relationship between governments and the contractors it uses to physically carry out some of the national security and the way in which they that their particular employees. you are right, this was not particularly detailed or specific element picked off the shelf by snowden. this was more like a shoplifter running along the shelf, scooping off as much as he could. however, he did seem to know enough to make sure that what he did pick would do maximum damage to the united states closest allies. not just the united kingdom, but countries like norway and sweden, where the diplomatic relationship would be compromised. so, while from what we know so far, and as we say there are tens of thousands of documents we have not yet seen, we know that he meant to do damage, but
specifically how able he was in the time, we have to wait and find out, but it does raise questions about how government goes about the practicality of its security relationships. these are legitimate questions. these are questions he should be looking into and which, for the oversight elements in our respective countries, should be the areas of focus. >> thanks, dr. fox. i am a retired cia officer. i served for over three decades overseas, here in senior positions -- i would not have known a fraction of the data that edward snowden leaked but i have seen -- i would not have
known that it existed or how to get to it, and as i said, i have been in this business a long time. what is your view about -- i will know that you touched on it just now, but could you be more precise about how snowden could have been directly linked to this? it is inconceivable to me that simply by surfing the internet or by using his own personal resources he could have figured out what was most damaging to our security services and the western security services. >> well, there will be questions to answer. i think they are now beginning to be asked about his motivations, what may have been his earlier, if any, links to any anti-american extra national groupings. let's call them that, for the moment. that is another very legitimate
area that needs to be investigated. i think the first thing to look at is exactly the issue you mentioned, how was this able to happen? how was he able to get access to this information, given the life he operated? are those restrictions sufficiently robust? again, that is a proper area for oversight elements within the constitutional arrangements of this country to be looking at. i would hope that that is the issue of priority. >> thank you, dr. fox. i am the chief political correspondent for news mags. it seems as though we are having similar discussions like this, year after year. in october of this year it will
be the 59th anniversary that your foreign secretary said that kim fielding was completely cleared and was not a counterintelligence agent. just four years ago we saw mr. becks diaz in greece release the names of 2000 people who had secret accounts and were hiding money to avoid taxes. what can finally be done to actually have strict penalties on people who break the law and not make the kind of mistakes that allow us to slip through with this information? is there an answer to this? >> the answer has to be yes. we cannot continue where we are at these relatively low levels, with employees making such great disclosures about information. we have to look at areas of encryption in terms of the
information and the level here that employees have in terms of the ability to access it. how we store data. and whether there are simple firewalls in what we do. all of these issues have to be looked at. there will always be espionage elements with people who want to damage us, for whatever ideological reasons we have, what we can do is interrupt their ability to do damage. that is the area we need to be thinking about in this information age. otherwise this sort of level of disclosure would not have been able to happen. so, that is an area where we need to be considering. i think that we need, in the selection of the employees, we
need to be a bit more robust in questioning and assessing them. there is no way of stopping it. the business of espionage will always be there unless, face it, we are in the same business ourselves when it comes to protecting our own national interests. what we have to ensure is that we are better at it than those who want to do the damage. >> in the back, here. >> thank you. leandra bernstein. i have a two-part question. first of all, you continue to refer to us and we. would you not agree that the united states intelligence establishment and the intelligence establishment of great britain are fundamentally different? particularly regarding the history of the u.s. intelligence
establishment versus the much, much longer history of great britain's intelligence establishment? secondly, you also referred to the arrogance of the media. well, the way that that -- there is an arrogance to the intelligence community as well, intelligence community as well, which is also rather insular. the message that many americans receive is an impassioned, emotional, we are protecting you, how could you possibly criticize us? that is the message, without much substance to it, and with a lot of hypocrisy. for example, in our response to the drug trade, and our response to money laundering and these other issues that the intelligence community, chemical weapons, message -- weapons of mass destruction, issues with which the intelligence community
ought to be taking greater responsibility for. >> well, first of all, it is the intelligence community, not the omnipotence community. we cannot expect them to be right about anything -- everything all the time. that would be unreasonable. second, what you describe as the arrogance of the intelligence community, that is the appropriate place for politicians to be talking about oversight. to be discussing the mechanisms of oversight that already exist inside a free market or a free country like the united states. if they think there is insufficient oversight, then there is a legal redress. that is a good debate to have. a debate that should be perpetually be happening. when it comes to what i described as the arrogance of
the media, i don't by any means mean the whole media. you know exactly who i am referring to. there are huge elements of the british media who are completely outraged at the snowden allegations and the way in which "the guardian" newspaper in particular was willing to set them out and are angry about how the guardian did not face the wrath of the law that an individual citizen would have for that level of disclosure. there is quite immediate debate going on within their. when i say we, i do this instinctively because i believe that the three, and i mean this in the classical, small l, british liberal sense, the democrats of the world are united by our values. we are the ones at risk from
those who hate our freedom, hate our democracy, hate our liberty. at some point we have to grasp the fact that there are those out there who hate us not because of what we do, but because of who we are. it is who we are, what we have in common. it is that shared history that we need to protect. i am a huge fan of the united states. the concept of american exceptionalism, it is not that americans are exceptional, but that the constitution allows ordinary people to become exceptional or act exceptionally. that is the repository of the freedoms we enjoy in the western world, which is why it is so
important that this debate be focused in the right direction. we cannot afford an introspective and inward looking america in a world where the external threats have proliferated. because the threats are not just to you, but to us, to weed together. i think that that is why we have got to have solidarity when it comes to the security debate. >> if miranda had been caught in heathrow with 63,000 blood diamonds, he would have been arrested. >> especially if his plane ticket had been put -- had been paid for via national newspaper. different questions might have been asked. very good analogy. >> why was he not arrested? >> he was arrested, of course, under the terrorism act of u.k.. what was the reaction of the
press? to say -- isn't that great? our security system has intercepted someone carrying top-secret files that would blow apart security? the reaction from the left of the media was to say that this was an unwarranted intrusion into the freedom of the press. first of all, we were told that maranda was a journalist. then we were told that he wasn't a journalist. that we were told he was the partner of a journalist doing some couriering of information on behalf of a journalist because the editor told him to regard electronic communication is safe. we are entering into some sort of alice in wonderland political existence when we get into this particular element of the debate. here was someone illegally carrying 58,000 files of
security information from one foreign country through heathrow airport to take it to another country to break, in my view, our terrorist legislation, giving out the names of operatives to who those who. and we are supposed to be embarrassed that we were angry about it. >> should he have been released or kept in top -- kept in custody and prosecuted? >> as a politician is -- it is not my place for me to comment on law enforcement in the united kingdom. but i think i have made myself relatively clear. about what i think should happen. i think that there is a very serious national issue to be confronted here. what has become the conclusion? that it is ok. we came to this conclusion that in the name of journalism, what if we came to the conclusion
that it is perfectly permissible to operate in this way in the future? where does this lead us? where does this leave the ability of our security services to operate? what will be the relationship between the state, citizens, and media in the future? this is a vital debate in which we are now engaged. we need to get it right. i would venture to say that the greater intellectual input that we have seen to this point. >> it has been suggested that edward snowden, by some fairly high-level people in government, that we should consider an amnesty deal for him, where he would turn himself in, hand back the documents. do you think that would be a good idea? would it be counterproductive?
>> on the documents? what are we going to do? ask china and russia to give them back and expect them to do so without having copied them? i mean, get real. the damage has been done. this is a man who has betrayed the trust and confidence placed in him by his own government and, by extension, his own people. he has done goodness knows what damage to the security of his country and the allies of his country. he has been willing to be best buddies with some of the most dangerous enemies that the countryy has. he has made it clear where his sympathies and values live. and we want to give him an amnesty? please. >> one more question from the audience. >> there you go.
>> thank you. dana milbank. i want to ask both of you to say whether you think "the guardian" and "the washington post" or wrong to publish those initial revelations from edward snowden? >> the press are perfectly at liberty to discuss the extent of surveillance. we have laws in which those who have the initial data can access that data. within the parameters of the law that we have, it is a good debate to have. what is quite wrong and unforgivable in my view is what i said earlier, to set out the means by which our security services go about their business. even worse, the names of those whose lives are on the line to carry out that work on behalf of
our respective countries. and when you get, as in the case of the guardian, the unwillingness to hand back the information, which the government said they have no right to possess, that they are wrong to hold onto, and are incapable of protecting, sufficiently, and making themselves a target for any of those who would lock -- want to have that, who then have the information they possessed destroyed on the premises, on the basis of a secure arrangement with the government, and while they're doing so, carrying the same information to the next jurisdiction by a human mule, i really do worry about the ethics and integrity of that. i have real problems being able, in any way, as a democrat, to defend that as freedom of the
press. >> i would add ird published in the washington post saying they should not have published those documents and that it was a violation of the law. the law is very clear. it is not just a matter of an individual, the government exposing that. the publication is a violation of the law. whether it would ever be prosecuted is another question, but i certainly think it is incredibly damaging to do that. >> finally, it boils down to those of us in the political sphere. are we willing to defend to our last breath the security of our people? are we willing to defend democratic institutions, the faith placed in us by our own people, including the oversight,
that we have a responsibility to have on our security services, and finally, are we willing to uphold the law at any cost in any inconvenience to the political classes? that is the gauntlet throat and down to us. >> i would add at the end of that, as dr. fox pointed out, you can make an argument some of the revelations have sparked a valid debate on civil liberties. revealing the fact we have figured out a way to break into al qaeda's computers when they are not connected to the internet, which has no implications for civil liberties, how does that help national security or advance civil liberties? so many of these have nothing to do with civil liberties. when you talk about those, there is no justification for publishing them in the paper. with that, we are at 11:00. thank you for an interesting discussion.
[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> former british foreign secretary and former u.s. ambassador to celia discuss humanitarian efforts in syria. r conversationhei at noon eastern on c-span. up, former secretary of state alert clinton is among me speakers at the women in the world summit.
and jenny yellen speaks at the economic club of new york. fox discusses nsa surveillance programs and the effect of the snowden links. -- leaks. journal,ext washington the careson looks at payouts after finding that the majority of to just dig quarter of doctors who accept medicare. and the author discusses his book on the state of the global economy. las vegas sun correspondent talks about a nevada rancher facing a conflict with the bureau of land management over grazing fees. plus your tweets and facebook comments. washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span.
>> some of the administrators were not lawyers. they gave the kids bad legal advice. which was essentially, don't tell your parents. don't get lawyers. cooperate with the police. this will go away. had --ve duke -- they that they had legal exposure because of that. there was this desire to make this go away. protect the duke brand. once it wasat -- decided these kids were innocent, the last thing duke wanted was to try to litigate with them about what had happened. the easiest course of action was paid $20 million, have them i presume sign nondisclosure agreements, which explained why they are not talking to me and have not talked to anybody said settling -- but it is not clear
eyed duke felt the need to pay these kids. get, unfortunately, wrongly convicted all the time. there are places like the innocence project to defend those kinds of people and try to reverse the judgments made. people wrongly convicted for murder spending 18 years and prison and getting a $20,000 payment a year as a result. spent, other than their arraignment, no time in jail or prison and got $20 million. >> in the price of silence, alumr and do glove -- duke looks at the lacrosse scandal of 2006. >> thursday, a panel discussion on the future of conservatism. among the speakers, the national affairs founding editor and
former white house domestic policy adviser. here is some of what he said. in one way, i think the way to think about the problem we are facing -- the change. the reason some people say this is not the america i used to know is our idea is shape by a postwarerica -- america that couldn't possibly come back. a country that won that war in a way that strengthened the economy will all the other competitors earn to the ground. for decades, contained in itself the growth of global capitalism. all boats did rise, to some extent to read -- to some extent. that model defines our expectations that needs to change. it will be difficult to change that. readinge experience of
charles murray's new book right after reading the conscience of a liberal. both oaks start in the same way. earlynostalgia for the 1960's. they are right. those were years that we should mess. -- miss. but our politics is too oriented around how to bring that back rather than thinking about how the world looks now and how we can make the most of america today. that is most parties that are failing. not just the conservatives. both parties are intellectually exhausted anyway that is bad for the country. >> there is the soldier. >> the government was big. big labor was big. his there was a lot of economic dynamism. that is true. that doesn't mean we can do today -- do today. >> soars the future? -- so what is the future?
the 60's were good to me. you say we are not looking back. >> technically, we weren't born then. >> that is why enjoyed them. [laughter] >> can see more of the panel on the future of conservatism eastern.night at 8:00 ofnext, firsthand stories amin's and chemical attacks in syria. a pop singer who was leading protests in the ukraine. alertconversation with clinton. this was part of the fifth annual women in the world summit from lincoln center in new york city are -- city. it begins with remarks from tina brown. >> so when i look around the theater tonight, i am so blown away by what i see because i think some of you are going to remember that five years ago women in the world began with
just 300 people, like the greeks and now look how we have grown, just like the global women's movement has grown, too. women's too. half the people in the world are now claiming their share of respect and power and dignity and wealth, of education for themselves, their children, their world. and tonight we're going to have the honor of hearing from two women, two leaders who contributed so much to the struggles to make that happen, managing director of the i.m.s. christine lagarde and former secretary of state hillary rodham clinton are going to be present. [cheers and applause] >> they're going to be present in a unique dialogue between the two of them, the first in a public forum. christine has been with us for five years. she has asked her daughter to read for her. she is joining us later in the summit.
tomorrow with have a brilliant poet. she has an amazing following among young girls and dissidents and patriots who have made this journey including the ukrainian singer and former m.p. [applause] >> when protesters gathered in the square under the guns of that government, she memorablely kept singing the national anthem to calm and hearten protesters. just sprung from the ordeal of two years in the prisons of putin's, russia, putty riot. [cheers and applause] >> they're here in the audience, i hope they will stand and we'll stand with you, pussy riot! cheers and applause] >> it's great to be able to tell you that in year five,
women in the world is on the move. we have taken the exhillerating energy of the summit to brazil, chicago, l.a., and london. we're planning san antonio, texas, mexico city, and thanks to all of you, thanks to all of you for making that happen, for being here, for tweeting and spreading the word. it's amazing what has happened. hanks, too, to my friend and co-conspirator who is also here tomorrow night. the participants in this year's summit have come tonight from 25 countries, women who are agents of change, women who are innovators, troublemakers, peacemakerers educators women who are compelled by social injustice, medieval madness or transitions or by the glass ceilings that they encounter. what they all have in common is a humbling and infectious
optimism. here in america where we have our own issues, we do sometimes lose perspective. it's not represented by the fact that in today's fractured media environment, so many great reporters and photo journalists and broadcasters are denied the means of what they're best at doing and long to do and tell stories and tell them with an understanding and a depth and a complexity not possible in just sound bites. that's why the mission of this convening is to bring us the wider world as seen through the stories of women. let them tell their stories without mediation. many of them live daily lives and challenge so we can only glimpse sporadically. it's exhilarating to be able to bring them here in full voice, the glorious stage of lincoln center. perhaps the connection that we forge with them will persuade us to reexamine our lives in our own world and if we're
doing as much for human values as they are. if you're moved to support any of the women you see with time, money, or social media, you can. in fact, you must. we have six ipad stations around contributions go directly to them. with the end of each program, we're going to send you the link to the organizations. we have them on your cell phone, i know that all of them will welcome your tweeting, your support, your donations, anything you wish to give. my guess is that you're going to want to do that. i'm inspired myself every time i meet women who risk their lives and often give their lives. the terror of the 25-year-old education campaigner from pakistan who is here in the audience. i don't know where you are, but i know you're there somewhere. she is coming to join us saturday on the stage. she told me recently that her motto in life is don't cry,
strategize. don't cry, strategize, i love that, thank you for giving us the mantra of our fifth summit. she learned this philosophy, she told us from her father when he consoled her after her best friend was murdered in an honor killing. that's why it's fitting that there are excellent men in the audience as well and in the program, not only in the audience, but in the program. david, tom freedman, charlie rose, ken burns, and jon stewart, john is joining us tomorrow as a moderator because he believes what has happened to women since the arab spring is no joke. i want to thank all of the public spirited anchors from every network who are going to join us in the next 2 1/2 days to moderator panel. thanks to the intrepid tv newswoman cynthia mcfadden. she stepped in at midnight even
though she is about to start a demanding new job at nbc news to moderate this evening's panel about syria and speaking of support, thank you big time to our loyal co-presenting sponsor toyota. toyota is with us for the third year running and they have been with us taking women in the world out on the road for the many summits we have been doing for the last three months. i want to thank them for being such great partners. i want to thank mercury too. [applause] >> i'd like to thank merck, too, they have increased their commitment to become a co-presenting sponsor alongside. thank you. a warm welcome as well -- [applause] >> a warm welcome as well to a new leadership sponsor dove. they're joining us for the first time with a compelling program directed at young women on saturday morning. i express the appreciation as
well for the sustained commitment of our leadership sponsors, bank of america, the coca coalia company, our sponsors, our digital partners, my be loved alma mater, "the daily beast." i would like to say something about my co-host because you want to know the meaning of soft power, just now meet the women of renown and dedication and grace who are my co-hosts of this year's women in the world, please welcome them know, thank you. [applause] >> the women i am here for is in the congo who
works with women who are displaced and abused by the army. the experience of being displaced was an unhealthy experience. it was a huge trauma for me. we were in the bush and we were more than 20 people. at night, we could not sleep. we never were well. we were always scared so i had one song in my mind, lord, do what you want with me. when i was singing that song, i could finally find the calm. the song gave me courage to go back to the town to identify the women who had displaced. this is why i focus on training and income generating activities for these women to encourage them to help them find a happy life.
[applause] >> the women i'm here for is cynthia, the daughter of salvadorian immigrants now living in boston. i'm cynthia and i'm first. coming from an immigrant family and the first generation born in the u.s., i had an early understanding of the challenges that people faced. my parents worked two jobs. my sisters were teen parents and my brother was a drug addict. i had two cultures, two languages, and low income realities that made a lot of opportunities seem distant. regardless of the situation, i embraced my personal story and made it my motivation to move forward. college was my step towards getting a rewarding career. it's not as serious as people
might think. as the first to go to college, i now have the chance to be a role model for my family. some day my nieces, never ewes and my own children will look t me and follow me path. [applause] > the woman i am here for, a gender activist and advocate in nairobi kenya. i came from a polygamist family of 40 children and grew up with hardship. every society has different challenges, the way i was raised inequality is compounded by a lot of social amenities for education and a preference for boys. i recall my mother saying i want my daughters and other girls to be better than who i
am. while my mother did not know how to read or write, she was devoted to enrolling girls in school. she initiated the neighbors in need program and now i'm her successor. we are supporting girls in education mentoring girls who are refugees and intentionally displaced persons and advocated for policies that change gender inequalities. [applause] >> the woman i'm here for is lena, the only health worker in the congo village. since i'm the only health worker in the facility taking care of a large population, i have to plan properly. i'm the records officer, the pharmacist, the nurse, and more. thankfully the community supports me by cleaning the
facility. supplies and equipment are few. the increase in maternity and outpatient charges has sometimes forced me to dig into my own pockets to procure essential medications. but i do this because i am part of the community. my work is challenging, but also very rewarding. when i see people get better and have hope, it keeps me going. my passion has been my greatest strength. [applause] >> the woman i'm here for is from pakistan. i was 13 years old, an eighth grade student, the youngest among my siblings. i was walking home from school and i went to the store to buy a toy for my niece. a man pressed a handkerchief on my nose. i fainted. i was kidnapped and then gang raped by four men. they said they wanted to
declare me an outlaw. then they warned my brother and father they would kill me. this is what happens in pakistan, men get away with it because they're powerful. these men set the rules and they think they know how to deal with issues. they don't. my life is destroyed. my education is destroyed. my family is destroyed. i don't care what the judge says. i know i was wronged. i will not step backwards and will always carry on my fight for my rights. [applause] >> the woman i am here for is from cambodia. our government does not kill with weapons. they kill with corruption. they sold the land beneath our homes and we were expected to disappear without a sound. i am one of the people near the
capital. my home was taken, stolen from me by government agreed in exchange for skyscrapers and shopping malls. to protest is not the cambodian way, especially for a woman, but i cannot tolerate corruption. a generation of young people in cambodia are growing up with broken hearts. this cannot stand. i have been arrested, harassed. they try to intimidate me. i have been detained in prison held for months. it will continue, but so will we. we believe in democracy and we will fight for it. we will be seen, we will be heard. [applause] >> the woman i'm here for is stephanie and the many women like her in the united states serving unjust mandatory minimum sentences. at the age of 23. stephanie received a 30-year
prison sentence for a nonviolent drug-related crime. she was a first-time offender. looking back, i know i did something wrong. i met a man named john who promised me cash if i helped him set up his new business. his business was selling crack cocaine. i helped him for a little offense a month. in return for money that i used to pay bills and buy groceries. after six weeks, i cut off all ties and moved myself and my kids away to start a new life. we were living in boston when i was indicted on drug charges. i prayed i would not serve time because of my clean record and limited involvement. i could not have been more wrong. i spent the last two decades behind bars before i was granted my freedom. as difficult as my time in prison has been on me, it's been harder on my children. my heart breaks that i have not been there for them. finding work when you have a record is tough, but i'm
determined to work hard, to be a good mother and to have a good life. [applause] >> the woman i am here for is esther from uganda. she is a midwife. i am always here monday to monday. delivers are unexpected and i have to rush wherever and whenever i am needed. there are days i have to run long distances to meet mothers who cannot make to the health center, only to find that she is already delivered. once i found a woman giving birth next to a swamp because she couldn't walk any further. it was a terrifying sight and no woman should ever have to go through that. i am privileged to see life join this earth every other
day, although my heart breaks to watch mothers go through such agonizing pain. not so much the agony of giving birth, but the agony of giving birth under very harsh conditions. our work can be very challenging yet we cope. [applause] is e woman i'm here for a's first female boxer invited to compete in the olympic games. a man with a long beard came to the olympics office and said to the coach, you must not train girls. they even called my father to threaten his life, asking him why he had allowed his daughter to do boxing. however, my father is happy that i practice boxing.
a school classmate who sits next to me jokes that he doesn't want to sit next to me because he is scared i might punch him. i must make progress in sports and not marry soon. afghan girls should tell the people of the world that we can progress. we can advance as well. i will proudly fight for women and afghanistan. [applause]
♪ ♪ >> i was at school when it was bombed. some of the children were killed, we all ran away. i was running fast on an endless road. with my siblings, we were running back home seeking protection in my mother's arms. when we saw the bombing of the school, we thought they bombed all schools all over the world. finally i was home. the bombing stopped for a while. mom served lunch. i ate, drank a glass of water,
then went into my room with my notebook and pen. i wanted to do my homework. all of a sudden the bombings resumed. i dropped both my pen and minot book and i hid under the table. i thought it might protect me. i left home, i left my school bag, my notebook, my pencils. i didn't finish my homework. little by little home is fading away as well as the performance grant yates and the lemon -- pomegranates and the lemon trees, the tree in the garden, our neighbor's house, my grandfather's house, my friend's house, all fading away. god, what happened to my country? exile at day, my
started. in young girl has a name, of course, but revealing her identity might place her and er family in danger. however, there is a video link with her in lebanon, so she'll be able to share this evening with us and to witness her words expressed to an international audience a half a world away. so i would like to say this to matter. words words matter. you're the girl that i'm here for tonight and this is your poem. when i take my pencil and notebook, what shall i write about? shall i write about my school, i house, or my land of which
was deprived. my school, when will i visit you again, take my bags and run to you? my school is no longer there, now destruction is everywhere. no more no more students. no more ringing bells. shall i write about mywhere i c? shall i write about flowers which now smell of destruction? syria, my beloved country, when will i return back to you? . had so many dreams none of them will come true. all i want is to live in my country and freedom. syria, my beloved country. i y